Chapter IX: Appendix: I

Percentages and numbers of families in the United States in 1890, under owned and rented homes and farms, were represented by Dr. C. B. Spahr as follows:

[Families Identified with Farms and Homes.]

----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- Owned: |Percent.| Numbers. |Rented | Percent. | Numbers. ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- In cities above | | | | | 100,000 population: | | | | | Homes owned | 22.83 | 444,879 |Rented:| 77.17 |1,503,955 In cities from 8,000 | | | | | to 100,000: | | | | | Homes owned | 35.96 | 629,092 |Rented:| 64.04 |1,120,487 Outside such | | | | | cities: | | | | | Homes owned | 43.78 | 1,849,700 |Rented:| 56.22 |2,374,860 Farms owned | 65.92 | 3,142,746 |Rented:| 34.08 |1,624,433 ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- Totals and averages | | | | | (for all) owned[178] | 47.80 |*6,066,417 |Rented:| 52.20 |6,623,735 ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+---------

Footnote 178:

As we have seen on p. 116 that 1,696,670 families out of the total of
the owning ones* in 1890, were in debt, having their properties under
mortgage. And only 4,369,747 families out of 12,690,152 in the United
States were free owners of wealth. Compare the above totals with
statistical averages on p. 79. See Dr. Spahr’s “Present Distribution
of Wealth in the United States,” 1896, p. 53.

II.

DEFINITIONS OF TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES.

“A trust,” as defined by a committee of the New York State Legislature, “is a combination” aiming “to destroy competition and to restrain trade through the stockholders therein combining with other corporations of stockholders to form a joint stock company of corporations, in effect renouncing the powers of such several corporations, and placing all powers in the hands of trustees.” The general purposes and effects among them are “to control the supply of commodities and necessities; to destroy the very possibility of competition; to regulate the quality of all commodities; and to keep the cost to the consumer at prices far beyond their fair and equitable value.”[179] Further, “Trust is” an acting scheme “where, by a device of trusteeship, various corporations practically form one monopoly without losing their separate corporateness. The novel characteristic of such a trust is not in its being a monopoly, but the way in which the monopoly is attained.”[179]

Mr. Charles W. Baker in his _Monopolies and the People_, says:

“A trust is a combination to restrain competition among producers, formed by placing the various producing properties (mills, factories, etc.) in the hands of a board of trustees, who are empowered to direct the operations of production and sale, as if the properties were all under a single ownership and management.”[180]

MONOPOLY IN PRIVATE HANDS.

“A monopoly in industry may be defined as the control of some natural agent, of some line of business, or of some advantage over existing or possible competitors, by which greater profits can be secured than other competitors can make.”[181]

All these definitions indicate that the private monopolies and combinations have one and the same purpose or end in view: It is to find such devices and means and to establish such organization of business activity, which will enable the organizers and managers to obtain from the people the greatest profits for the least cost, thus concentrating the people’s wealth in a few hands without paying anything to the people in return.

III.

On the contrary, a monopoly of the government or of municipality may be defined as a system of controlling the natural or artificial agencies of public service and utility at such a cost to the public served, which will merely cover all expenses necessary (to construct and) to keep these agencies in the best serviceable and available condition or state, thus leaving no room for the unjust concentration of the people’s wealth in any private hands.

INDEX.

Average: rate per cent on debt, 123, 124;
average wealth of the rich, the well-to-do, the middle, and of the
poor classes, 28, 29;
of over 27-millions, 51, 52;
average, for homes in debt, 113;
for farms in debt, 111, 112;
differences in averages of different authorities, 38;
—rents, see: Rent.

Blocks illustrating comparison of individual wealth, 50.

Bread-winners by C. D. Wright, 85.

Capita: per capita wealth, 27, 38;
per capita debt, 122, 123.

Capital: aids to increase production of wealth, 55-57;
concentration of capital increased, 140, 155.

Cities: per cent of the homeless in, 80;
cities’ families in debt, 114, 115;
large cities’ families in debt, 114, 115;
cities belong to 24 and 14 per cent of their population, 118, 132.

Comparison of the poor and the rich by dollars’ worth, 7, 8;
comparison in tables, 42;
of the family-groups, 39;
of the U. S. with France at the time of Revolution, 16;
with Rome, 17;
by Crosby Hon. Ino. Reciprocal comparison of the middle classes of
two tables, 39.

Concentration: of wealth in higher spheres, 153;
of employees, 155, 156;
1st table of concentrated wealth, 150;
2d and final table of, 169;
explanation of this concentration, 170;
concentration of wealth increases, 180, 181;
concentration of wealth greater than the total increase of it, 170,
171.

Consumers’ opinion on remuneration of capital and laborers, 97, 98;
do not know the bases of justice and rights, 98, 99.

Debt: on farms, 111, 112;
on homes, 113;
increase of, 1880-89, 119-122;
increase of public debt, 167;
total debt on acres and lots in 1890, 121, 124-5;
percentages of families in debt in cities, 114, 115;
debt of the U. S., states, counties, school districts, etc., foot
note, 126;
of New York, foot note, 134;
amounts of, on real estate, 121;
per capita, 122;
extinguished debt, 12.68%, 122;
interest charge against debt, 124;
combined interest charge against families’ debt, 125, 126.

Distribution of wealth: 1st table, 28;
1st R. table, 29;
2d table, 32;
2d R. table, 36;
2d Right table, 45;
1st and 2d tables, 47. Table I, 6;
diagrams for conclusions of Mr. Holmes, 5;
diagrams for conclusions of Mr. Shearman, 12;
Table II;
conclusions of Mr. Shearman, 12;
diagrams for conclusions of Dr. Spahr, 20;
double table III for these diagrams, 21;
conclusions of Dr. Spahr, 18;
conclusions of Geo. K. Holmes, 5, 6.

Dividogenesure: definition and origin of, 70;
divides people into classes, 71;
its tacit power of enslaving the people or expelling into the sphere
of charities, 72;
it enforces idleness, 73;
is the main cause of misery, 74;
is sister of primogeniture, 74;
is a pernicious principle, 74;
its favorites without moral responsibility, 75;
is a system of slavery distinct from any other slavery, 75, 76;
the propertyless are special victims of it, 92, 103-4;
is a foundation of iniquity, 87, 88;
implies degrees of hardship against its dependents, 117, 74;
its hardship according to the rates of gain from each employed
individual, 103-4;
its rates are not wages, but pure losses, 106;
differs from primogeniture, 131;
future of the nation under dividogenesure, 106-7, 181.

Energy: human energy embodied in objects, 98;
crystallized in articles, 99;
human energy concentrates into the hands of speculators, 99, 100.

Extortion: from the public by excess of selling prices over cost of
production, 158, 159;
by mining monopolies, 161;
by stock-watering, 173, 174.

Families: groups compared, 39, 42;
basis of family-worth, 39, 41, 42;
statistics of—occupying farms and homes, 79,—hire farms, 81,—hire
homes, 81, 82;
farm families in debt, 111, 112;
home-families in debt, 113;
table of farm and home families, 116;
one million of rich families, 92, 103-4;
dividends of the million families, 103, 104 and 138-9;
one million (families) masters, 181-2;
263,380 families of the well-to-do class included into the average
of the poor of the 2d table, 32;
exposed by comparisons, 39, 42;
surplus million families found in the tenant group, 2d table, 32,
34, 35.

Farms: acreage of, 148;
rent per acre, 148-9;
acreage for the increased population, 164-5;
rent, 165;
increase of rented farms, 166;
percentage of incumbered farms, 166, 167;
farms in France, 49.

Future of the nation (possible), 106-7.

Gainful pursuits, persons engaged in, 91-2.

Galileo signed Jesuit Verdict, 16.

Germany, Berlin, 48, 49.

Great Britain, distribution of private property, 48, 49.

Herron, George (Professor dismissed from the Iowa College), 107.

Holmes, G. K. U. S. Census Expert on Mortgage Statistics, 6, 14, 15,
24;
not partisan, 33, 35.

Holmes, G. H., view on mortgages, 132.

House-Scarb defined, 8.

Income: daily income from the poor, 138-9;
gross incomes of the workers decreased, 143;
net incomes of many trusts omitted, 151-2;
net incomes of the owners of the central parts of cities, 152-3;
net incomes of the manufacture and mechanical trades, 157-8;
net incomes of the mining monopolies, 161;
total net incomes of the natural, mortgagee, rentable house, and
land monopolies, 150;
total net incomes of all monopolies, etc., table, 169;
excess of the incomes over the total increase of wealth, 169, 170-1.

Inventions: as aid to human energy, 85, 86;
they are blessing and curse, 86;
inventors were a blessing to humanity, 98.

Landowners of England, Scotland, Holland and of Germany, 56.

Logical Premises, 5;
logical premises of life, 25.

Losses: special of the wage-earners, 157;
special of the farmers, 160;
special of the miners, 161;
loss of the previous wealth by the people, 171;
total loss of wealth in 7 years by the U. S. people, 170.

Mayo Smith, Prof., compares French proprietorship of land with that of
England, 49.

Monopolies: definitions of, Appendix II and III;
profits of the mortgagee, 145;
profits of the natural, 101, 145-6;
profits of monopolies of the rentable homes, 146-7;
profits of rentable lands, 149;
the total net incomes of 4 classes of monopolies, 150;
grand total of the total net incomes of the monopolies and
combinations, 169;
explanation of the net incomes of the monopolies, 170-1.
See: Incomes, the excess of.

Mortgages: statistics of, 111;
development of, 119;
significance of, 128;
semi-optimistic views on, 128;
view of Mr. E. Atkinson on, 128-132;
of Mr. G. H. Holmes, 132;
view of Rev. Wm. D. P. Bliss, Editor of Enc. of Soc. Reform, 133;
Semi-pessimistic views: view of Mr. J. P. Dunn, Jr., Burden of Debt,
134;
losses of property by foreclosure, an example, 135, 136;
view of Mr. D. R. Goodloe, 136.
See: Debt.

Mulhall, Mr., comparison of farmers of different countries, 93.

Napoleon Bonaparte, 107-8.

Poor: grow absolutely poorer, 172.

Population: in families, 18;
in individuals, 5, 12;
increase of in 1897, 163, 164, 165;
in 1900, 182.

Primogeniture, Great Britain and Japan, 70, 74, 136.

Productivity of the Americans: on farm, 93;
in industry, 94, 95, 96.

Propertyless: “Less than half the nation,” 18;
“tenants,” group 1st, 2d table, 32;
causes of the increase of the propertyless, 52;
propertyless is a resourceless man of multiple expenditure,
61-68-71;
he is a source of multiple income for many propertied, 68;
without employment, 69;
pay rent or are expelled, 77-78;
unseen forces compel him to be a slave, 76;
more than half the population, 82;
made the nation in 1865, 85;
could build and inhabit 33 most populous cities, 83, 84;
have nothing to hope for, 86-7;
number of in 1897, 179;
number of in 1900, 182.

Rates of interest are higher against the poor debtors, 127-8.
See: Debt.

Real estate indebtedness, 121.
See: Debt.

Rent: house rent per family, 147;
house rent on farms, 149;
rent paid for homes and farms by increased population, 164-5;
average house rent, 147;
for farms, 148-9;
totals of rent paid, table, 169;
according to Dr. Spahr for 1890, house and office, 152-3;
rent for 1900, 182-3-4.

Resources: of the propertied, 53-60;
of the propertyless, 61, 64-5;
a semi-resourced man, 68.

Rich: comparison of, 42;
deeper reasons why the rich grow absolutely richer, 172-3.
See: Distribution.

Rome, mistress of the world, 17.

Shearman, Tho. G., conclusions of, 11, 12, 24, 32;
his basis of averages differ, 38;
one average covers 89.4% of the entire population, 40.

Spahr, C. B., Dr. conclusions of, 18, 20, 24;
table, 28, 31.
See: Taxes.

Statistics of wealth, by J. K. Upton, special agent of the 11th
census, 27, 181.
See: Mortgages.

Steam power: increase of, 57.

Taxes: proportions of national taxes, 175;
indirect taxes paid, 176;
decrease of national taxes, 176;
unjust to the poor, 176;
local taxes: proportions of, 176;
local taxes less unjust to the poor, 177;
local taxes paid, 178;
the poor pay taxes on gross incomes, 179;
total taxes paid by the rich and the poor, 178, 179;
taxes increased by the war, 180-1.

Tenants of farms and homes, 32;
the correct number of, table, 36.
See: Propertyless.

Trusts: definitions of, Appendix II;
development of, 154-156;
incomes of some trusts omitted, 151-2;
trusts more active, 180;
the view of Henry Brown, Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme
Court on trusts, 162.

Wages: economic doctrine of the rate of, 141;
wages would be twice as low, 141;
artificially kept up, 142;
reports on the fall of wages, 142-3.

Waite, F. C., special agent of the 11th census in charge of True
Wealth: ascertained the earnings of the natural monopolies for
1890, 99, 101.

Wealth: table of, 27;
accumulation of, 27;
True wealth, 99, 101;
land is the source of wealth, 54, 55;
average wealth per family, $5,125, table, 29, 47;
per capita, lower table, 27, 38, table, 51;
aggregates of wealth owned by different classes, 1st table, 29, 45;
wealth owned by individuals, table, 51;
chart, 50;
concentration of wealth, tables, 150, 169 (for 1897);
increase of wealth (for 1900), 181;
increase of in 7 years, 139, 140;
increased phenomenally, 140;
who profits by the increase of, 144-5;
concentration of in industries, 154;
largest fortunes of, increase most rapidly, Dr. Henderson, 172;
wealth reduced with the increased number of families, 171.
See: in the tax table, 178.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOOTNOTES:

Footnote 1:

Quoted from “The Public,” Number 69, July 29, 1899.

Footnote 2:

Louis Post, ibid.

Footnote 3:

His name cannot be here given.

Footnote 4:

This work will show the real causes of it and the rapid tendency
toward it.

Footnote 5:

Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1435. Ed. by Rev. Wm. Bliss and
published in 1897 by Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and London.

Footnote 6:

This 5 per cent includes personal, unproductive property of all sorts.

Footnote 7:

Mind that these statements are of one authority only, viz.: Mr. G. K.
Holmes.

Footnote 8:

House-scarb means: all domestic or household property that may be
carried on from one rentable house to another.

Footnote 9:

Dr. C. B. Spahr, Pres. Distribution of Wealth in the U. S. (1896), p.
69; published by Thos. Y. Crowell & Company, Boston.

Footnote 10:

Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1388.

Footnote 11:

Ibidem, p. 1388.

Footnote 12:

This table gives you the exact equivalent of diagrams found on p. 12.

Footnote 13:

So far, we give honor to Mr. Holmes in advance.

Footnote 14:

One of the best authorities in statistics.

Footnote 15:

Reported in Binghamton Independent of Aug. 12, 1899.

Footnote 16:

“The Public,” Chicago, No. 74, Sept., 1899.

Footnote 17:

The diagrams and statistical tables supply the life contents for these
premises.

Footnote 18:

The exact statistics of the Eleventh Census, 1890, have given the
average at about 4.93 members to a family, which means that in each
100 families 93 have 5 and 7 have only 4 members. In 1880 this average
was 5.04, and in 1870, 5.09 members to a family.

Footnote 19:

Ibid., p. 69.—I italicize these conclusions. See Enc. of Soc. R., p.
1389.

Footnote 20:

Dr. C. B. Spahr, “The Present Distribution of Wealth in the U. S.,”
1896.

Footnote 21:

Whereas the general average of per capita wealth was $1,036.

Footnote 22:

Here, p. 6.

Footnote 23:

Here, p. 13.

Footnote 24:

Here, p. 21.

Footnote 25:

Here, see p. 18.

Footnote 26:

Dr. Spahr, “Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States,” p.
69.—Enc. of Soc. R., p. 1389.

Footnote 27:

Enc. of Soc. R., p. 1384.

Footnote 28:

C. D. Wright, “Atlantic Monthly,” Sept., 1897.

Footnote 29:

“Encyclopedia of Social Reform.” (p. 1388), 1897, by Rev. Wm. Bliss.

Footnote 30:

Dr. Spahr, “Present Distribution of Wealth in the U. S.,” p. 69, 1896,
who held each family at five members.

Footnote 31:

It should be borne in mind that, “Goods, wares, merchandise, utensils,
furniture, cattle, provisions, and every other species of personal
property, was included among the assets” representing wealth. Dr.
Spahr, Ib., p. 55.

Footnote 32:

Encyclopedia of Social Reform (publ. in 1897), p. 1388.

Footnote 33:

These totals have been summed up by me.

Footnote 34:

Table, p. 32, here.

Footnote 35:

Compare the total wealth of this table with that on p. 27.

Footnote 36:

Here, p. 13.

Footnote 37:

Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1897.

Footnote 38:

See here, p. 18.

Footnote 39:

This is the restored group of the 1st table, p. 29.

Footnote 40:

3d group, p. 32 or 36.

Footnote 41:

See Diagrams, p. 12, and Table II, p. 13.

Footnote 42:

Compare these families in the 2d restored table, p. 36.

Footnote 43:

Compare the same families in the 1st restored table, p. 29.

Footnote 44:

Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1389.

Footnote 45:

Statistics and Sociology, p. 201-2.

Footnote 46:

Subtraction has been made on p. 36.

Footnote 47:

See table, p. 29.

Footnote 48:

The total number of immigrants entered into the United States from
1891 to 1897 inclusively was 2,854,834.—The World Almanac, 1899, p.
176.

Footnote 49:

Here, p. 18.—Dr. Spahr, “The Present Distribution of Wealth in the
United States,” p. 69.

Footnote 50:

Even the uncultivated land is a great source of income to its owner.
And if it were not so, the great landowners of England and Scotland
would not have owned fully 20,000,000 acres of the U. S. land. But now
five of them own it, and draw large incomes from it, while remaining
at home beyond the Atlantic. And the Holland syndicate and the German
syndicate could not have owned 7,000,000 acres of the U. S. land, if
it were not a source of income, even without special application of
any labor energy to it. But now the former syndicate owns 5,000,000
acres of grazing land in Western States; and the latter owns 2,000,000
acres of it in various States, as the “Up to Date, Coin’s Financial
School,” has indicated, pp. 108-118.

Footnote 51:

Chas. R. Henderson, D. D., “Social Elements,” p. 144.

Footnote 52:

Some one may of course prefer to live in another’s house, as they say,
not willing to pay taxes for his own property. But a just taxation can
never cause this trouble. The abnormity of taxation is shown here in